'No Vicarious Liability On State For Judicial Actions': Calcutta High Court Rejects Plaint Seeking 100 Cr. Compensation For Alleged Defamation By HC Judge

The Calcutta High Court on Monday while exercising its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC allowed an application for rejection of a plaint seeking compensation of Rs 100 crore against the State of West Bengal on account of vicarious liability for an alleged act of defamation committed by a High Court Judge.

Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that the plaint lacks any cause of action as there exists no vicarious liability on the State for the judicial actions of the Judge.

"The misplaced notion of the plaintiff that the State is liable and is required to take action against orders passed by the High Court is absolutely unfounded and finds no place in the law. Secondly, it has to be noted that there is no master-servant relationship between the State and a High Court Judge, and accordingly, there is no question of any vicarious liability on the State for the judicial actions of the Judge", the Court observed.

The Court further opined that the plaint fails to indicate any law that creates an obligation on the State to take action against a Judge for an order passed by the Judge in his judicial capacity. It was further noted that the Judge's Protection Act, 1985 clearly provides protection to the concerned Judge and that the State is required to obey and comply with the orders of the Court.

Background

In the instant case, an application had been preferred by the State for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The concerned plaint had sought a decree to the tune of Rs. 100 Crore against the State of West Bengal on account of vicarious liability for an alleged act of defamation committed by a High Court Judge.

On May 25, 1998, the wife of the plaintiff had passed away in Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai. On November 19, 1998, a relative of the plaintiff had initiated criminal proceedings in a Trial Court under Section 304A of IPC (causing death by negligence) against 3 doctors who had treated the wife of the plaintiff in Kolkata.

The plaintiff had subsequently filed complaints before the National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi and the West Bengal Medical Council but they were dismissed. On May 29, 2002, the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore had passed a judgment convicting Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Dr. Baidyanath Halder under Section- 304A of the IPC but acquitted Dr. Abani Roy.

On March 19, 2004, Justice Gora Chand Dey of the Calcutta High Court passed a judgment wherein the convicted doctors were acquitted and the acquittal of Dr. Roy was upheld. Some observations against the plaintiff were also made and the judgment was widely shown in the media.

Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court but it was dismissed vide judgment dated August 7, 2009. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Justice Gora Chand Dey under under Section 500 of IPC (criminal defamation) before the concerned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which was dismissed on August 16, 2011. The plaintiff had also filed a revision petition before the High Court which was dismissed without costs by a judgment dated September 29, 2012 passed by the Justice Aniruddha Bose.

On June 7, 2013, the plaintiff addressed a letter to the Member in Charge and Secretary in Charge of the Law Department, Government of West Bengal, inter alia urging the addressees to initiate proceedings against Justice Gora Chand Dey, since the judgment dated September 21, 2012 held that a private person is not authorized under Section 3(2) of the Judges Protection Act to initiate action against a judge by instituting civil or criminal proceedings.

Four years later, on September 20, 2017, the Advocate on Record for the Plaintiff issued notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the Secretary of Home Affairs for compensation of Rs. 100 Crores due to alleged inaction of the State. On December 22, 2017, the plaintiff filed the instant Suit and present application has been filed by the State on December 10, 2019 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Observations

The Court at the outset noted that the plaintiff has admitted that there is a delay of 1964 days in filing of the plaint and has sought and an exemption under Section 15 (5) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Dismissing such a contention, the Court observed that Section 15 (5) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is clearly applicable only in computing the period of limitation when the defendant is absent from India.

However, in the instant case the Court opined that it is an admitted position that it was not the defendant that was absent from India, but the plaintiff himself. Thus, it was held that the suit is inherently barred under the Limitation Act, 1963.

While proceeding to determine whether any cause of action exists in the plaint, the Court noted that the plaintiff had not filed any suit for claiming damages for mental agony suffered by him after unsuccessfully claiming remedy from the Court. It was further noted that there was no relationship between the plaintiff and the State when the plaintiff was seeking remedy by filing criminal cases against the Judge. 

Opining that it appears that the plaintiff has filed the instant suit against the State only because he has exhausted all other criminal remedies, the Court underscored, 

"The relationship between the plaintiff and the State is nowhere in the picture when the plaintiff was seeking remedy by filing criminal cases against the Hon'ble Judge. When the plaintiff approached the State without even a single finding in favour of the defamation allegation made by him against the Hon'ble Judge, it would not be correct to say that at such moment the cause of action has arisen to proceed against the State for claiming damages due to mental agony. The plaint does not disclose any cause of action to proceed against the State. It appears to me that after exhausting the criminal remedies the plaintiff moved before the State authorities without highlighting any cause of action."

Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgment in T Arivandandam v.  T.V. Satyapal wherein the Apex Court had held that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it appears that the plaint is manifestly vexatious, meritless and not disclosing a clear right to sue then power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC should be exercised. 

 Accordingly, the application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 was allowed.  

Case Title: Dr. Kunal Saha v. The State of West Bengal & Anr

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 111

Click Here To Read/Download Order